User talk:Jasper Deng/Archive 9

King Cobra
Hello, I am just wondering why I am getting a warning? I am simply trying to make the article more factual. There is a lot of things based on myths, conjecture and amateur wannabe herpetologists point of views in that article. The user User:Fearingpredators is a self-admitted amateur on the subject and many of the "references" or "sources" he has are links which do not claim what he claims in the article and also a lot of his "sources" are ones which aren't written by well-known herpetologists in the field. Most of his "sources" are actually unverifiable. But if that is the kind of article you want, then by all means. I apologize. Bastian (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Being an expert does not allow your views to trump his (Wikipedia is a community). I actually support your version, but you are edit warring, which is considered disruptive editing and is not allowed.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, trust me I hate edit warring. I am not trying to "trump" his views. He has his opinions, and that is fine. But articles on animals, especially well studied animals such as the King Cobra or the Black Mamba, are science related - so people's views and opinions mean very little, what matters most is field research and data. His opinions matter very little, mine aswell. What we want is facts. I was looking at some of his verifiable references and many of them don't claim what he claims they claim. Then we have a problem with his many, many unverifiable sources. I won't edit war, in fact, I am going to leave the king cobra article alone altogether. However, the Black Mamba article is a well written, well-sourced and good article for people to read. I do not want him destroying that. Bastian (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I like your versions. Therefore, other editors most likely will too, and they will revert Fearingpredators instead of you. If that user reverts them, he, not you, is the one who gets blocked for edit warring. But if you edit war, you are the one who gets blocked.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, gotcha! So all I have to do is sit back and let others revert them back to the way I had them? I just hope that you are right and I hope at least you will keep an eye out on the black mamba article. Just so that we can make sure that it stays the way it is now - well-written, well-sourced, objective and factual. This way if a young student is doing a project on the black mamba or any other snake, they can come to their wikipedia articles and get real information and learn the facts, not the myths (because there are a lot of myths, old legends, and conjecture when it comes to the black mamba and even more with the king cobra). Bastian (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * One more thing, can I revert the king cobra article to what it was originally? I mean after I cleaned up a lot of myths, conjecture, and unverifiable sources under the "Venom" section? Bastian (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The idea is only that you must collaborate and discuss with other editors, not edit warring. You may not make any more reverts.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey Jasper, if you go to the black mamba article, you'll see that it was reverted back to the way Fearingpredators had it, but now it was with "new" accounts and anonymous editors (he knows he got a warning, so he may now be using a double account or he may be editing it anonymously. I reverted it back to the way it was, but regretted it after since you said not to revert (I can revert it back to the way he/she had it if you want and let someone else revert it). I apologize for that. I have tried to discuss it on the talk pages of both the black mamba and king cobra articles, but he/she just doesn't understand. Then I tried to communicate with him/her through his/her user talk page, but he/she would never reply to me, but instead clear the page. So this is a bit frustrating. Can you please do something about this? He/she is single-handedly destroying an otherwise great article (black mamba). It's not just the material, but his/her grammar aswell. Bastian (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you suspect sockpuppetry, open a sockpuppet investigation. Also, please do not call edits "vandalism" when they are not - any good-faith attempt to improve an article is not vandalism. Re-revert yourself (undo your own edit) to avoid being blocked for edit warring. Fearingpredators is now listening after I gave him an edit warring warning as well.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm a new user, so I really don't know how to open a sockpuppet investigation. In regards to me calling the edits vandalism, I did that because it's taking a good A- article and turning it into a mediocre C grade article. This is all very frustrating. I didn't realize wikipedia was like this. It's difficult to try to keep a good article in good shape and it seems like I can't do much about it. Bastian (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * He's trying to improve the article even if he's not, so it's not vandalism. To open a sockpuppetry case, there is a link on the page that gives you a set of fields you need to fill out. I do recognize that he is being disruptive - report him to WP:ANEW if he continues edit warring.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: I've opened Sockpuppet investigations/Fearingpredators.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Jasper. I tried to communicate with him through his talk page, but he didn't reply but instead cleared it all out. I had a good solution to his unverifiable claims - especially the book "Snakes of medical importance: Asia". I told him to simply scan the pages to prove his claims on the king cobra article and reference the scanned pages. It's a great idea, don't you think? But he won't do it because everything he claims that the book claims isn't true (especially in regards to the capture of this "Chinese King Cobra" with a super toxic venom and the 75% mortality rate). I've read the book before as it's an old one (1990) and I can assure you nothing in it says anything about a Chinese KC having this super toxic venom nor does it claim a 75% mortality rate for untreated bites. We know King Cobra's evolved to have very weak venom, in fact it's even likely that the KC has the least potent venom of any elapid. This is because they are the largest venomous snake on earth and this means that a bite delivers massive quantities of weak venom - so massive that it can kill a human in an untreated bite 50-60% of the time. So it evolved to have quantity over toxicity, unlike smaller snakes which deliver very small amounts of venom in a bite - so they require a very toxic venom in order to kill their prey or even their predators. Here is what I wrote to him:


 * Fearingpredators, you really have no idea what you are talking about. Most of your "references" aren't verifiable and the ones that are, don't claim what you claim they claim. Don't you see a problem with that? Since you reference the book "Snakes of medical importance" so much - for almost everything, why don't you scan the relevant pages from the book and add them as the references. Since I went out and got that book from the library (which by the way, is not "new" as you suggested in the article and I quote: "Yet, in a recent toxicology study, the LD50 value of Chinese king cobra venom was found to be 0.34 mg/kg" "Recent"? See that you made up because it isn't "recent" the book was published in 1990, but what herpetologist caught this "Chinese KC" and when? So prove this to be true by scanning the relevant pages and putting them up as the references. Why not? Also, there is no such thing as a "Chinese king cobra" - they are all one sub-species. The KC doesn't need a highly toxic venom because its bites deliver massive quantities of venom and that is why it is deadly. It evolved that way - quantity over toxicity. The snakes which yield lower amounts of venom, are usually the more toxic ones because they required a very toxic venom to kill their prey. Study evolution, particularly that of snakes and especially elapids, please.

Instead of replying to me and having a discussion, he clears the page without saying anything back to me. I am trying to communicate and discuss, but unfortunately, he isn't interested. He's only interested in the myths and legends which surround the king cobra. In my opinion, this is a younger individual or an uneducated adult (just look at his grammar) who has snakes as a hobby and has a mythical view of the KC, so he wants everyone to have this view of the KC aswell. However, that shouldn't be allowed on here. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia and that KC article is no encyclopedia material! Bastian (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Jasper, just wanted to say that since you made the sockpuppet investigation on Fearingpredators two IP's were banned for 1 week and since then there has been no disruptive editing on either the Black Mamba or King Cobra articles. So he was also anonymously editing and I believe he also has at least 1 other account. Bastian (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A ban, fyi, is not the same as block. I'd rather assume good faith with Fearingpredators since he now knows that sockpuppetry is forbidden.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason for the reversion as the relevant pages of the book are even scanned and added (you can have a look). “75%” with reference cited by other user has been there for a long time and approved by other editors and managers. The user is now selecting and eliminating information and references which he thinks those don’t “make sense”, claiming that those are “children books” and others are “vandalizing” the articles. Besides, there are a few exaggerations in the article “black mamba”. For example, “…died in minutes” and “…South African-born herpetologist Austin Stevens, regard…” (Actually, the Austin Steven official website given only states that in Austin opinion, the black mamba is the most feared snake and the B.asper is the most aggressive snake that Austin has ever met). In one of the old versions he edited, he even claimed that “the venom of the black mamba is among the top ten most venomous to mice…” with the reference “LD50 menu”. Yet, even the reference ranks it as 23 and there are far more LD50 tests conducted around the world and many species are not tested in the same project.(we can’t directly compare the results given by different lab.) Yep, my english is not good since it is not my first language. I have joined wiki for 3 years but I am still not used to using the talk page or discussion pages. That’s why I don’t talk much. Moreover, I have already typed all my reasons in the discussion pages of the articles (you can check it) and he has repeated the same reason for many times. This is the reason why I don’t want to talk with him and clean my talk page.It is quite annoying. You are a manger so I respect your advice and warning and I backed off. I have reported these two articles to Mokele, a manager who has checked these snake articles for a long time and has related knowledge. It seems that he has a project to do and I am waiting for his reply and judgment about the accuracy of all these. What I can’t accept is that the user put all the “vandalism” into my account. I think it will be good if we can have even more managers to check those. Thank you !.User:Fearingpredators (talk) 01:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a user keeps reverting the article king cobra without any reasons. I have stated the reasons and informed him in his talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ruud_Koot#Reversion_of_the_king_cobra_article You can go to the article for a look. Thank you ! User:Fearingpredators (talk) 17:13 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Besides, I have reported it to the administrator’s notice board and requested for related administrator’s attention and intervention. I reversed the article king cobra since everything had been fixed well but then was deleted. So I would like to inform you about this and you can check the things there and keep an eye on the latest edit before any decision is made. I am waiting for administrators’ replies. Sorry to disturb you. Thank you ! User:Fearingpredators (talk) 00:23 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think both of you have to agree not to edit war. Please, please use discussion pages like talk pages before resorting to administrators. No-one is called managers on Wikipedia - I have no more privileges than you do (besides being able to edit semi-protected pages, rolling back changes in a flash, and reviewing pending changes - these do not give me power of any sort). I think you need to discuss more, and not blank your talk page when Sebastian tries to communicate with you.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Censorship Article
It's not an essay. It's just an English class assignment. We were told to contribute to Wikipedia, and the topic my group chose was on censorship, and there was already an article about that, so we were told to add to it. I'm sorry that you don't agree with that. I'm a college student, I'm not a Wikipedia genius. This is the first time I've tried doing any of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleymarieburns (talk • contribs) 03:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Rickard Öberg
Hi Jasper, I noticed that you recently reverted some edits on the page about me (Rickard Öberg). If you can tell me what was wrong with the edits, maybe I can try to put in a version that complies with the rules that were broken. Thanks, Rickard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.237.168.160 (talk) 06:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We are very strict on the verifiability of articles of living people. If you are the subject of such an article, please read the guidelines on conflicts of interest, and note that you are not considered a reliable source, even for your own article.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

King Cobra, again
Hey, since you claimed to like my version better, can you please go to the King Cobra talk page and claim this under the section "Modifications"? Admin EdJohnson wants editors to choose one or the other. Can you please support my version? Bastian (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, what he really means is to get a compromise. See Consensus.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I have compromised. The only thing that he sourced and was correct was the "0.34 mg/kg" value of toxicity. But that was simply a passing statement made in a book that was published in 1990. He referred to that as a "toxicology study" - I mean the scan is right there, you can go look at it. If it was a study then where is the data? How many snakes caught? It was a point blank statement made in a book, that's all. It goes against all other studies that we know of for values (and I listed 3) after mentioning his little thing. I think that is compromise. Everything else, I debunked piece by piece. Just go look at the king cobra talk page. I still would appreciate it if you would simply post a comment claiming what you already claimed: that my version is the better one. That builds consensus. --Bastian (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

News and progress from RfA reform 2011
(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.)

The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to  these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere.

A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising  the project  pages, researching  statistics and keeping  them  up  to  date. You'll also see for example that  we have recently  made tables to  compare how other Wikipedias choose  their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits.

The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on  specific issues of our  admin  selection  process and to develop  RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that  all Wikipedia policy changes take a long  time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to  be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments.

The object of WP:RFA2011 is not  to make it  either  easier or harder to  become an admin -  those criteria are set by  those who  !vote at  each  RfA. By providing  a unique venue for developing ideas for  change independent  of  the general discussion  at  WT:RFA, the project has two  clearly  defined goals: The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project  pages to  suggest  and discuss ideas that are not  strictly  within  the remit  of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they  will  offer maximum exposure to  the broader community, rather than individual  projects in  user space.
 * 1) Improving the environment  that  surrounds RfA in  order to  encourage mature, experienced editors of the right  calibre to  come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their  time to  admin  tasks.
 * 2) Discouraging, in the nicest  way  possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to  guide them towards the advice pages.

We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in  order to  build consensus.

New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern.

Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any  editors are always welcome on  the project's various talk  pages. The main reasons  why  WT:RfA was never successful in  getting  anything  done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody  remembers them and where they  are hard to  find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on  the founder's talk  page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 15:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

Talkback
FYI Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

 * I am mainly an anti-vandal person, but thanks anyways.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism on Windows 8
Thanking you for helping me out with reverting the recent vandalism on the Windows 8 page and for warning the user appropriately. I am new to Wikipedia, so this helped a lot. Thanks once again. MarkMildenstein (talk) 01:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

ANI-notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Compliant_about_2_editors Domenico.y (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y


 * Hi Jasper. I've commented at AN/I to the effect that I'd like you to stop interacting with Domenico.y, starting now. I release he's not quite got the whole Wikipedia thing down yet, but I'll take it from here. OK? 28bytes (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Blast - had been following this, but had missed the AN/I. Was going to suggest Jasper backed away from the situation myself, but to be fair he was a lot less involved than the other protagonists.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Anything you can do to help out would be much appreciated... Domenico.y seems to be struggling here and will likely need some hand-holding to get him on track; I'll do what I can but the more eyes the better. 28bytes (talk) 09:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To give you a sense of context, I haven't given this user any interaction for some time besides the recent SPI. Apparently, in my view, the SPI proved to be too much. MarcusBritish, on the other hand, has been making comments accusing me of HOUNDing Domenico.y and being a bully, things that I sharply reject and am sick of being accused of long after I've mostly ceased interaction with Domenico.y. I don't agree that I'm "campaigning" against this user, but it clearly is causing him some agony even if the terminology used by MarcusBritish and him aren't correct.Jasper Deng (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You made 8 edits to Domenico.y's page between the 24–27 September, today is the 28 September. Where, pray tell, is this "long after" period you speak of? How does using "MfD", "Disruptive edits", "Sockpuppetry case", and undoing an accidental placed barnstar with "You may not award yourself a barnstar, sorry" as edit summary not pertain to constant hounding. Plus in all your replies to me you never once show any sign of self-deprecation or apology towards Deomenico.y for being on his back constantly, and never assuming good faith.. whilst maintaining that you are acting in good faith yourself and giving the false credence that you are an admin - Wiki isn't a place for ego-trips, and you need to tone down your attitude towards newbies, and those who challenge your behaviour if you want to make a better impression. My terminology is suitable, if not excessive, to the situation, and it has clearly peaked your attention and that of others, and I clearly I hold the moral highground in defending a relatively new editor against your relentless disservice towards him. If you were a bot account I'd request you be blocked for over-reactive posting. Seeing as you're not, as a human you can learn from your mistakes better than a bot. Remember, we're all equals on Wiki - even if some editors are more-experienced, and some have a tendency to wiki-lawyer themselves out of tight corners, and some force their experience on newbies to gain the advantage. I have no problem with Domenico.y "taking cover" behind me in this situation, as he was clearly overwhelmed by the behaviour of yourself and another editor posting a huge array of accusational messages over a short space of time, without any indication of good faith - and I have no doubt that without support from me he would have crumbled and who then would turn a blind eye to your actions - mentors, admins? For now the situation is over - per the ANI raised rightfully by Domenico.y, you should maintain your distance from now on and give the lad some breathing room - in a week it will all have blown over. I've said much the same on my, hopefully, last need to remark on this matter. Remain optimistic and I, and I'm sure Domenico.y, will do the same. It would not be unreasonable if you dropped him a brief message in some way of apology, advising of your decision to back off, to improve his confidence in wiki, though that is by no means a demand, simply a request that would be prudent on your behalf. I am by no means an "unfair" person, and I think, if you evaluate the situation in retrospect, you will see that you have acted presumptuously. Sincerely,  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  &#91;Talk]&#91;RFF] 15:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * MarcusBritish, my replies to you are to you, not Domenico.y. All else though is correct in your comment.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What are you thinking?
Jasper, what is your reasoning for breaking 3RR on this talk page? I'm not seeing any. — G FOLEY   F OUR!  — 04:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "LOL U MAD" Sounds very familiar. Banned users' edits are exempt from 3RR. Removing my own comments is considered self-reverting.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I admit I didn't look at the userpage before coming here. :/ But, do you have a username for this 'U MAD?' vandal? Also, it would probably be best to not use rollback on at least of the reverts – so you can explain. — G FOLEY   F OUR!  — 04:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This guy has been on my user talk page and NawlinWiki's before, and they were all blocked as socks (and the edits revdeleted so I can't give you diffs). In some ways it resembles Grawp, but I've never actually known this sockmaster. I don't quite get "on at least of the reverts."Jasper Deng (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure … "U Mad, bro?" is a rather popular meme now, so it could just be a random high-schooler. As for the username, I'll let another admin handle it – I'm not sure one way or the other. In my previous comments, I meant to say "on at least [one] of the reverts." — G FOLEY   F OUR!  — 04:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Got it. Was having a hard time assuming good faith (if you want a diff, the most recent edits are quite far back). In any case, the username is not appropriate and he really shouldn't be restoring my own removed comments. The user is quiet now, so let's wait. Whether this is an LTA or not the username is not appropriate, the userpage something to delete, and the user something to block. But good heads-up on the rollback (I did use TW, but too late, to warn the user of edit warring and to note that it's a suspected sock account and a VoA).Jasper Deng (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Now this was well within the use of Rollback, since it's clear vandalism of my comment.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)